on pipelines and we need to be for those up if the top minds -- pipelines were built before 1969. we have a very old system. going to moment we are continue the conversation i u.s. energy policy and hydraulic fracturing or fracking. we will be hearing from a lot of the producers of the documentary "fracknation". also hear from former interior secretary gale norton. we also want to let you know at 9:00 eastern, we will expand the conversation to include your thoughts. we will open up our phone lines for your calls and looks at some of your tweets. the hash tag we are using is fracking. should fracking be part of u.s.

policy? facebook.com/cspan. we have some post from a number of folks. rather says, i would invest in a clean energy. i think we need to put the full cost of keeping our land, water, and air clean on the corporation that is extracting-transporting the energy and its byproducts. one more from -- who says, as long as the profits go to exxon who sells it to india and china, and not in the u.s., what difference does it make? solar is the way to go. your comments at facebook.com/cspan. now to that discussion on u.s. energy policy and the producers of "fracknation". this is from the leadership conference of the rockies.

good afternoon, everyone. it is terrific to see so many of my friends at the leadership program of the rockies. it is wonderful to see people from all over colorado coming together for some great policy insights. well, today, for the next hour we are going to be talking about energy, and specifically about hydraulic fracking. asking youhe stage by to think back a few years. think back to 2002, 2005, 2007. think about what our energy picture looks like at that time. when i was secretary of the interior, the emphasis on energy became painfully clear after the september 11 attacks. for many years, our country had talked about energy independence of how much we wanted to see that.

but we suddenly realized just how vulnerable we were pared those same kinds of terror attacks that came to our shores could easily disrupt our supply lines in the middle east. all of those nations that we depended upon were ones that becominganger of dominated by terrorists. we saw so many problems with our reliance on middle eastern oil. yet our reliance continue to grow and grow. we saw our prices go up, and there was a great deal of concern. sensing an opportunity to embarrass the united states, donated heating oil to poor people of new england. natural gas situation was different, because natural gas was a domestic supply. in theuce our own here u.s. and canada and mexico.

resources were depleting. we were concerned that the future was looking at very bleak for natural gas production in the united states. we saw the prices grow dramatically. they were six times the historical level. and 10 times what they were and many other countries. and with that situation, people worried about how they were going to pay their heating bills, the cost of electricity rose. visibly, natural gas is an ingredient in so many products. and so, the prices of fertilizer went up. i talked with farmers who were concerned that they wanted to grow corn for ethanol but could not even do that because the high price of fertilizer because of natural-gas. chemical companies depend on natural gas as a feedstock, but chemicaljobs in companies had already gone

overseas. when i talked to the leaders of some chemical companies, who said they were going to have to send even more. they hated to do it. there were forced to buy the high price of natural gas in the united states. one of them even said, he saw de- as the industrialization of america. try to increase production on public land. that ran into litigation and red tape. 40% of our production was coming from offshore. that ran into problems named rita and katrina. the solution looked like liquefied natural gas. what that meant was going to the same places in the middle east where we got our oil supplies, liquefying natural gas, putting it on ships and importing it to the u.s. i talked with alan greenspan about that. he saw that as something we had

to do to get our economy to stay one.rong -- a strong that was the picture. federal policy was in turmoil. congress was trying to pass legislation. the executive branch was looking at what we could do. below the federal policy radar, technology and the free market were working. something called hydraulic fracturing began to be used more and more broadly and quietly this began the transformation. producers began tapping into new resources. all of these places that were seen as having small resources, loomed large on our horizon. today, natural gas prices have fallen dramatically, and we are

seeing, instead of the exodus of jobs from america, the renewal of manufacturing here in the united states in large part because of those prices of natural gas. if we do bright future not mess it up. seere even beginning to a decline in the dependence on foreign oil. of course, whether we are going to mess it up or not is today's policy debate. our next speakers have challenged conventional wisdom on environmental issues. they have entered the fracking debate with a new movie called "fracknation". ann mcelhinney and phelim mcaleer are a husband-wife team of journalists and filmmakers. tomorrow afternoon at 2:30, there will be a special showing of their movie "fracknation" for the leadership program of the rockies. if you want to make good pol --

public policy, you have to hear from all sides. what you will see when you listen to our speakers and see their movie is that they express the view that is not the same as what it will hear from hollywood or the media. now lets welcome ann mcelhinney and phelim mcaleer. [applause] >> hello. it is very nice to be here. >> hello. >> you are sounding very quiet. >> we are married, so it will only get very messy very quickly. >> as long as i do what i am told, it will be ok. >> he always says that and i find it equally amusing each time. i think one of the things we

would like to do, talking to groups, because some people have heard speak before. oh, yawn, we have heard this before. we like to tell people how this started. >> tell us where we are no and look at how it all started. we want to pay a little -- of "fracknation". towant to play a trailer whet your appetite. >> these people are campaigning against fracking. i am a journalist. what could possibly go wrong? the think it is a corporate? -- appropriate? >> [bleep] i am armed. >> you are armed? 9:30knation", january 22,

eastern on access rf. tv. >> we are not on a christmas card list of much of the environmental movement. [applause] ago, it was very different. we were liberal european journalists. there are no other kind, just in case you're wondering. it is a trifecta. the perfect storm -- liberal european journalists. you know it all. you really do. americans are stupid. as long as you keep saying that, you will go far. so how did we get from being that his standing in colorado today showing our film "fracknation" which is basically 77 minutes of environmentalists attacking me for asking questions. it started on a mountain in

romania. not used to be a teacher that long ago in ireland. and then i met a man. at the beginning of my tragic story. tragic.case, it was not and he got a job covering romania and bulgaria and we moved to bucharest. i was not a teacher and i thought, what will i do? for the first year, i did very long boozy lunches and very long boozy lunches. it works out really well for a year. i highly recommend it. everyone deserves a year like that. then i thought, what am i going to do? i said to my husband one day, and my mother who recently passed always used to talk about the hand of god. i am not that religious, but it is funny the way things work out.

i said demise husband, i would like to be a journalist. -- to my husband, i said i would like to be a journalist. within the hour, a friend told us about a story in ireland about a body found in this case in a canal, a murder. i said to my husband, i wanted to be a journalist, and i got my first story, which was an extraordinary murder of a romanian man by a russian mob and dublin. and i found the murderous. -- the murderers. and i thought, this is great. i started doing story about everything. then a story came out in europe that was the huge store for environmentalist. it is about the largest gold transylvania,n which is an actual place, even though dracula's from their. defaultup there as lefty journalist, having heard

what "the new york times" had said. having heard what abc said and what the mainstream media said, which is that greenpeace is telling the truth. the locals are being pillaged. and the canadians, as we well know, evil canadians. you know that narrative. we went up there. and something amazing happened. >> we discovered that everything the environmentalist were saying was either exaggerated or untrue, and everything that the gold company was saying, you could check it. it was facts. they had to file documents with insurance companies, banks, the world bank, the mother, their granny. that was the amazing thing -- one could say whatever they want. the other, the gold mining -- if they said whatever they wanted, they would go to jail. that was the difference.

we went to the environmentalist and said, you got is completely wrong. but the woman is emotional." two women, a swiss and belgian, kept the people of this village in poverty, because they look at the village and saw culture of poverty to be preserved. the locals just wanted the gold mine. romans invaded roumania 2000 years ago because of the cold. no, that was not the way that that -- those women saw the place developing. documentary called " your-- mining your own business." six years later, that gold mine never took off. a lot of those people are no immigrants in greece because the

economy there is better. how bad in your economy be when people flee to greece for a better life? that is what these environmentalist did. they have the patron saints of forced integration and priority -- forced immigration and poverty. >> we changed from being his people -- i had thought that people were members of greenpeace. in college, green peas was a guy in a woolly jumper. and he had a lot of facial hair. >> women. >> that's not true. a lot of facial hair and he wore sandals, and he was jesus for nature. and the rest of us did not care enough. we went up the mountain in romania at the net, and we came down the other way. right wing nut jobs. and that is why we are here, because i suppose the thing we

realized what is it is serious an awful is -- and amazingly did not know before that is that the enemy of the port -- and ana-- environmentalists are the enemy of the poor. the thing that capitalists do. the capitalists, what does a capitalist answer? what did they offer the poor? they do not offer them handouts. they offer them a job and the possibility of a better life. it is great. it is a way for. so we became those kinds of people. for the last few years, we have been looking at and firemen to list stories. and no story is bigger than the story of fracking. there was a survey done a year ago and the states. what americans do not know fracking is. it is becoming a mass of story. -- massive story.

there are lots of people who do not want you to go ahead and develop any of the opportunities you have here. so gas land happened. >> gas land happened. as a journalist, we were trying to attract people to our website to buy id'd de's, because -- buy dvd's, because we are capitalists. i wanted to ask difficult questions to the director aabout "gasland." the famous scene is the flaming faucet seen. -- scene. oh, my god. i am so surprised. there is a very great investigative journalist a tool. it's called google. right? words and you put in the

flaming faucets, you get all of these results. there are three places in america called burning springs. the indians called them that, because this brings burned. the water burned -- the springs burned. george washington and tom -- over whetheret they could said the river on fire in new jersey, and they could. ofent to a screening "gasland." being as an his face difficult questions. he cannot believe that someone has the nerve to ask him difficult questions. it's shocking to him. there werees, i knew cases of people lighting their water on fire before fracking, because i chose not to put it into the documentary because it

is not relevant. he actually says this. tomorrow.e it i thought that is a great story. let's get it up on youtube one of the great journalist -- the hbo documentary filmmaker -- he got his lawyers to force you to to take it down because we used a clip of the guy lighting his water, and that was a breach of copyright, he said. we put it up on another web site. he got it taken down. eventually, i got so angry that i decided to make my own documentary. [applause] one of the places we went after the flaming faucet thing we had the ball, we thought, what did the other big stories in "gas land." and the central geographical zone is pennsylvania. which is a wasteland, according to the documentary, a disaster.

everyone is dying, horses are twitching and men did not fancy their wives and more. all kinds of bad stuff. in pennsylvania, there are 11 litigants. people in this room have been in litigation. fair play. if you think you have been wrong, call for your life. maybe someone wants to find out a story in litigation. it is very interesting that the journalists of america have been to pennsylvania, including josh fox. they have only spoken to the 11 litigants. we spoke to them. we did a lot something that a lot of journalists did not do -- we knocked on all the other doors. who say,r individuals the water here was always crap. 1500.

they signed a petition called, and of already pared some of them in their 80's. the water here was awful forever. we made a calculation. what' 11 out of 1500, les than 1%. we made a film for 99% of the people whose story has not been told, with the media are ignoring about the truth about fracking. and this is the story. we then decided we are making the story for the 99%. let's get them to pay for it as well. >> a clever trick. [there's a thing called kick starter, a lefty website. you want to make a documentary, you ask your rich friends to support you, and they do. so we went on that website and asked people.

3300 gave usths, $220,000 to make the film. it's a great weapon. it will change the world -- kick starter. no longer do you have to rely on hbo or robert redford, or the hollywood elite. you can ask people, if people think this is important, let's go for it. an interesting aside, at the same time we were making a documentary, there was another campaign looking for $ 150,000. anyone here remember troy davis? from georgia or texas. for that. executed there was a huge campaign to not execute him. involved.got

he was executed. the people were having to campaign -- they looked for $150,000 to make a documentary. they got $106. i think that tells you what the people of america really want in their documentary's. do they want the truth about fracking? media,to the mainstream you think everyone is obsessed with and in capital punishment and no one cares about the truth cares fracking. the actual truth is a very different. thank you, people. i am sure there are two executive producers here today. are there? >> there's always one. any advance on 2. one, two? one of the things we love to talk about when we travel run the country is how exceptional america is. we are here on visas.

we are legal. apparently, that is a disadvantage we would like to stay permanently. we are constantly talking about how exceptional america is. if you ever wanted proof of it reno ifrom a down market n ireland. that's where im' from. we came to america and went on ask people ford money. only in america, that is my theory. the next thing that happened is only in america. how many people here watch "shark tank." who is your favorite person? >> mark cuban. >> of course, guess what happens next? acquiresan "fracknation". our film is being shown in homes

across the nation because mark cuban saw something in us. god bless capitalism. thank god we are not living in runsnd where the state television. and they do not like our ideas. >> it then history was made when "the new york times" bid as a positive review. gave us a positive review. >> they said, harriet cook carter i -- said, "fracknation" is not tossed off frackinglm depicts with a dogged persistence. much of what it reveals is a provocative." what can i say? collapsed when

friday gave us a good reivew. -- when "variety" gave us a good reivew. -- review. starterhing about kick we love is the fact that everyone gave us $1.00, has their name on the credits. our credits go on for seven minutes. it is a thing of beauty. some people, when i was going out asking people to help us, to speak at events a lot of people sent in money in dedication to their parents. people dedicated it to divisions of the army that were still fighting in iraq. people dedicated to lost brothers and sisters, and to their children. i know there is

a "q&a". i want to show you another clip. the media has been very kind to the environmental movement over 40 years. they have never asked the environmental movement a difficult question. everything the environment, and has said has been true, and everyone has to react to that truth. the consequences -- the environmental movement, they overreact when they get asked difficult questions. one of the big families that have polluted water was the -- andhey got the local dep, they said the water was fine. the epa examined the water. i heard that the results were not held the family liked. i interviewed them. they thought i was another journalist doing another puff

piece on them. i went back to ask difficult questions. if we play the second clip. [video clip] road.was back on the the pennsylvania department of environmental protection had tested the water and the well. >> the environmental agency tells cbs news there is no evidence in pennsylvania of fracking ever having contaminated drinking water. >> that was not good enough for them. they insisted the federal environmental protection agency investigate. the epa started a comprehensive testing of the water wells. >> officials have released a fourth round of results from testing. the environmental protection agency says it could not find any alarming results from 12 more wells tested. >> the 1500 people said their water was fine.

the department of environmental -- confirmed this. i was half a mile away from their house. i was on the phone calling for droveerview when julie up. it going? >> if you put craig in the sued. you will be >> to you agree that the water is dirty? >> absolutely. >> but the epa says the water is clean. >> they didn't. >> they said there is no contamination. what did the epa say? >> yes, there is contamination. i am an american. i do not know what part of that you do not understand. you are turncoat. you turned against your own

country. i do not need your crap. >> i want to find you put craig in your movie, i guarantee i come down on you like a ton of bricks. >> why -- >> you're anti-manner and lying. >> what are we lying about? >> about what's going on herement you put me in there so help me god it will be the last thing you do. >> why do you -- you've given hundreds of interviews to people. >> you keep your anti-truth over there. and i'll keep mine. >> i want to know what the e.p.a. said about your well. will you give me the results of your well? >> i will not give the results. >> you are involved in a very public lawsuit and giving interviews and you said your well is camented. -- contaminated. i'll drink your water now -- and can we go into some of your brine -- brown water? is your water brown at the

moment? >> that came from my well. >> let's go to the well. >> you aren't allowed on my property. >> with your permission -- >> i'm going to call 911. >> please do. >> i am armed. i will tell you that. >> you're armed. well, i'm not getting involved. >> that's good. >> what are you reaching for -- >> i do have a permit to carry a gun. >> well, i'm not -- harassing you. you stopped to -- i'm standing here and you stopped to talk to me. that's -- that's -- >> that's a permit to carry a gun. >> are you declining an interview? julie, are you declining to show me the result? i just want to get that officially, are you declining o show me the results? >> pult your hand where i can see them.

what's going on? >> we're making a documentary. >> ok. do you have any i.d. on you? were you on her property at all? >> no. public road. and she pulled up and i actually was standing on the road and she pulled up to me and we had this conversation while she was in her car. >> did you say were you going ake water from her house without her permission? >> you asked voluntarily? >> yes. >> so not come on and take your water when you're gone -- -- >> did she say is that? >> yes. >> well, that's why i'm here. >> what was julie foutner trying to hide? why would she not sleers the findings of the e.p.a. water testing? three senior e.p.a. officials had given her the results and that the meeting was filmed. through freedom of information request i managed to get hold of a tape. and showed the e.p.a. telling

the founter ins that their water was not contaminated and their reaction to this good news was rather strange. >> she's got a problem. no. >> right here. >> i'm done with it. you can finish this. i'm done. i'm getting myself too upset. >> i'm sick and tired of this. what happened to you people? really? you guys are the same as you were two months ago, three months ago. do you think i made this stuff up? this is -- this -- you're out of here? put this down and talk rationally to me. you guys won't listen to anything we say. you say my water's fine and we can drink it. >> we're telling you we tested your water and at this point in time we found no contaminants in it. >> campaigns by people like the sauters bring bans on moratoriums on fracking around

the world. >> ok. can i just say something? [applause] isn't my husband a bit of a hero actually? >> i've been a hero and i've been stupid, right? and irish. in ireland, people don't really have guns. and i didn't realize in america when someone tells you they have a gun and reach for your purse you should actually run. i was -- reaching for your purse. and now i think about it, if someone tells you you have a gun and reach for your purse get out of there. >> so obviously we've done very well getting the flm out on the television. we've done very well-being reviewed on the mainstream media which is really important we think. that we're not in a ghetto of speaking to the choir. it's very important that the message is heard by more than a protected group.

and we've also been very conscious of working on social media. and here's the question to this group. how many people here tweet? yeah. that's super disappointing to be honest. [laughter] and i know the ones who did -- you see? you see? and everywhere i go, i evangelize. and i get my converts everywhere. it's mi layers. tweeting is really, really drn it's hilarious. tweeting is really, really important. i tell the soledad o'brien story which is a great moat vare for people to tweet. the thing about tweeting that's different from facebook is facebook is a closed community. you bring people in. and you chat to the people that are in there with you. if you're on twitter, you're talking to the world. that's a good idea. particularly when the battle for ideas is so important. and these ideas really matter. and bad ideas really are -- will kill us all. and it's so easy to see that. the maps of the world will show you the places with bad ideas

and the places with good ones. we live in california. you get in a car and drive down to mexico. it's the same land mass. it's the same weather. it's just ideas that change the thing. and changed drastically. so these ideas matter. and by the way i shouldn't really use california as an example. where great ideas -- but i think you get the idea. so on twitter, all of these things have been talked about and one of the things i like to say, i've come from an event in grand junction last night. 1,000 people came to see the phlegm in grand junction. -- the film in grand junction. they were involved in the oil and gas business. one of the things i like to say to them, they've been to college. they're the guys who didn't get many dates in college, you know? [laughter] and has to be a payoff for that at some stage. but i just think -- really good at books. and the kind of -- with the pens in their pockets and those kind of guys. and those guys could wipe the on with these people

twitter who are talking nonsense, for example, about geology and about water, about -- about the environment. they don't know anything about what they're talking about. but they just talk. and i actually think and i've said this to lots of audiences and patriots like yourselves, you know, there are people shooting guns and putting themselves in the line of fire for america. all over the place. why couldn't you tweet about the truth? it won't kill you, you know? and people will say awful things to you. like i hope you die. but it's not quite the same as having a gun pointed at you so it's worth doing and i think you can change the world and want to show you how it works. soledad o'brien, if you possibly know, tell the story about joel pollock. and t guy from breitbart andrew breitbart, very close friend, warrior, warrior, rince, amazing person.

who we really could do without losing. we could -- because -- yeah. because just look at the republican party. all the great ideas they come up with. as i said -- i just come from hillsdale college, leadership conference in florida. which was magnificent. and i said to them, how great are the republican party? here's what they thought of the great idea. let's pick the loser to the loser as the guy to go forward. against the coolest candidate possibly ever. you picked a guy who lost to the loser. that's a great idea. only a crowd of people who spent far too long in washington, d.c., could come up with an idea like that. [applause] i love america. only one place in this country i don't love. that town. that town. it's a hardship to go there. i find it a hardship.

you know what makes me really upset, sorry i'm ranting slightly here but i want to make this point. what really upsets me and loads of you guys know this is to go there on a monday night in february and every restaurant is packed out. and everyone's -- another bottle of chardonnay. there's loads of money because that's the one business that's thriving. with no controls on it and no regulation on it. god, i hate that town. so anyway, moving on. on the point about andrew, on the point about andrew, andrew always talked about retweet the hate. retweet the hate. so when someone -- you go on twitter and you start seeing stuff, people will say horrible things, i hope you die and your children are born handicapped and you retweet that and i put -- when andrew died, people wrote awful things about him. loads of you guys know that on twitter and i retweeted what they wrote and said your parents must be so proud. and education wasn't lost on you. and you know something, not one of them ever responded to me on

that. but soledad o'brien got into an argument, some of you know that with joel pollock. great, great joel pollock from breitbart on this issue of race -- this -- what's -- critical race theory. one of those critical -- and long story short, soledad o'brien who was moderating a debate, ended up looking like she was speaking for the white house. just unbelievable. she was amazing. so people like me started tweeting and saying you, madam are a disgrace to journalism. wroy it a few times -- i wrote it a few times. maybe 50. and loads and loads of other people wrote the same thing. here's how twitter works. she went on cnn and said on cnn could people please stop tweeting? don't you want to annoy soledad o'brien? you got a tweet. you got a tweet. john over there is a disgrace, anyone who knows him, ders pratt, he's got a -- desperate, he's got a twetter account. he tweets every time he sees me

because he knows i'm coming after him. that's the problem. i encourage you to tweet and here's how it works for us. and you tell this story. >> again, it goes back to this thing of environmentalists and the left actually not being used to hard questions or hard facts from journalists. twitter makes you a journalist. you find some information. you put it out there. it's a news agency actually that everyone can read. , his mother, $500 million. he -- he has 100,000 twitter followers. but he has an easy life. and he's now an artist against fracking. and he hates fracking and doesn't like fracking. o i started taking him on on on twitter and went uphill and he couldn't handle it anymore. so he said, you are an excuse for an abortion.

>> no, you were an argument for abortion. >> how's that? it went -- somehow made its way into the media. i don't know who would have alerted the media to that. >> hang on. hang on. [laughter] that's what happened. it was in the mail and daily news. and the huffington post. that's what happens, and that's the power twitter gives you. you're able to talk to people directly and put your thoughts out there. the article you can put out there with your comments. and sometimes like during one of the debates, and for the tweet out there, with the facts about what you find obama was graying the truth, what a surprise, about gas permits. and put the figures up there. retweeted 1,200 times. that's -- and so each of those people have thousands of followers or not. but that's a potential audience of millions and millions of people. with your comments. with your thoughts. with your news. so you can -- that means you

have -- you can have a higher raredship than piers morgan has most of the week. >> higher raredship than "the new york times." we love to say about "new york times," can you remember when "the new york times" made money? if you're old enough to know that, ask your doctor if cialis is brought for you. [laughter] and this time piece here and i'm going to watch that. we would encourage you wildly, first of all, come to the film tomorrow. for many people can come to the film tomorrow. great. ok. when you come there we're going to be shapelessly pushing ically d.v.d.'s on you, we're selling d.v.d.'s because they're keeping us on the road and very important. so please buy some and marvelous present for thanksgiving, thanksgiving, bar mitzvah, i don't know, all kinds of tradition --

>> ramadan. >> what's the summer thing called? the fourth of july. so and also very good to invite -- lent which we're in at the moment. and very important to invite that child as i always say to audiences, that child in your life that young person in your life who comes home to your house at thanksgiving and tells that you you're an idiot. do many of you have that person? lots of you have that person. that person needs to watch "fracknation" and ask themselves which side they're on. please be in touch with us. we are tweeting and ann facebook we are on and we have a facebook page fracknation which has more friends on our facebook -- some of it is up there. not really. and we have more friends on our fracknation facebook page than matt damon's film "promised land" has. we like that. we like that. >> q&a.

>> we would love to take questions and loads of team for questions and that will bre out more issues that we didn't touch on when we got a chance to speak. and how is that done? >> and john harpool. >> of course. i recognize that voice. where is he? >> class of 1991. and please don't do the math. and i plan to come up here and plug your d.v.d.'s but you did such a terrific job i don't need to. but folks, if you can see this, come tomorrow. i bought 10 d.v.d.'s when i first saw it. and giving them all away. and ann shared a story about a hollywood producer's party that she went to. and just to put these people in the mindset of what some of these enviros think, share that story with us. >> yeah. i was at a party. we live in los angeles, god between us and all harm and you can imagine the voort. great people obviously in california because -- yeah. anyway. so i went to this party. and i kind of knew before i

wept there might be -- it could be challenging let's say. and it was very challenging. and it was challenging at a level that got kind of comical. the one bit that john maybe is referring to is i had a few -- i decided -- i knew what people were going to be like at the party and you can't fight what everyone -- life's too short. but i could. and i thought just no fun in that and i'm -- and only one person. i'll keep it down to one. and i'll find the one that i think i cannot shut up about. so loads of people came in and said things that i thought were appalling. the stuff that drives every one of us completely nuts. the one that killed me and i had a bad ankle so stuck on a sofa with my leg elevated and this woman sat beside me, hey, how are you? and she was like very good scomploog a really good-looking husband and good-looking children and she was pregnant. and she said to me, do you have children? and i said, no, no, i don't and she went, well, you're a lot kinder to the planet than me. and i just oh, yeah, they're all over the place.

and i thought you know something? i really cannot -- i can't -- i can't close my mic for this one. this one, sorry girlfriend, you're going to get it. and i said to her, but i tried to keep it. i'm really bad at this. i'm so bad at this. the diplomatic corps was not for me. i said to her, really? why, i don't understand, well, there are too many people on the planet? i don't think you got that right. because a beg problem -- huge problem with population in europe and aging population in china and aging population in russia, where is this problem with the population? and she is going, i didn't really hear that before and this is -- by this is your classical intellectual. huge amounts of education, like ph.d. standard and that shows you what colleges do to people nowadays. so i went on with that and i kind of did my normal which is really, really? you think there are too many people on the planet and the voice is getting slightly bitchier? and really, have you been to

australia? have you been to australia? have you been to canada? have you been to canada? no one is living in canada. no one is living in australia. no one is apparently living in america and how i can prove it to you, 330 million people live here. yeah? so that's overcrowded. can prove to you it's not overcrowded. steve fossett, remember him? a gazillionaire. he takes off in a light aircraft from nevada. missing. how long did they look for him? for six months and gave up. couldn't find him. then the wife because she missed her gazillionaire husband and she had been looking for him for a year. did they find him? no. in america. that's overcrowded and this is a man -- this is a man, a dead body who has a plane wrapped around him. he's waring a plane. that's what he's wearing as a jacket. and they still couldn't find him and he was found. he was found. but don't let anyone tell you that the plan set overcrowded. slus up. that's -- shut up. it's not overcrowded.

and as for sustainability, s somebody asked me about sustainability which is the same thing. >> another question. >> shut up to sustainability. another question. another question. >> hello. >> oh, no, sorry. yeah. >> class of 2011. this whole fracking debate, using water to fracture oil wells, makes me wonder, what is this country come to? oil wells used to be fractured with jetfuel. and we didn't have those kind of protests. enough of that. my question, what are you doing next? could you carve out a lucrative career debunking everything michael moore has ever claimed? [applause] >> yes. yes. we have a list of our own. and we have a list of our own. we're just looking for money. so anybody who would like to donate, it's all good. we have a list of things.

there are so many things we would love to do. food. we would love to do food. all the nonsense about food. god preserve me and protect me from organic food. and there's a whole list of stuff. we have a plan. our very big plan is to make movies. to make movies that change the world. because we think that that's the only way forward. to make movies that change the world. and we've -- we're taking this very seriously. we're living in los angeles for this very reason because we're going to make movies that change the world. because nothing, nothing changes the world like a movie. nothing works like that. i mean, the example that we give people is china syndrome. don't ever let anyone tell that you flems don't change the world. that piece of trash of a film ended the nuclear power program in this country. they never built another nuclear plant in america. not because of three mile island. don't let anyone ever tell you that. it was china syndrome. that was the end of it. so on the flip side, you could make a film and tell the truth

and change the world. make people think differently about energy. make people think differently about resource development. and that is what we're going to do. and somebody asked me this question, at hillsdale, and i said, and we are going to do this. because we're in america. where everything is possible. [applause] >> yes. i'm walt johnson from lakewood. i'm one of the few geo physicists in the world that's also a professional engineer. i developed and pioneered some of the techniques to measure natural fractures. i also keep the people in the reservoirs, the folks that put together north dakota, are friends of mine and clients. one thing that has not been mentioned today is we are likely going to be the only country that meets the cotto protocol -- kyoto protocol because we let the free market do it. and my real question i'm leading to is i ordered your film the day after it came out

on television and i still haven't received it. maybe you should stay at home and print your cop ills. -- copies. >> they are being sent out. it's one of the backuppers about working when you have to depend on other companies. but depending on another company and it will be sent out. we'll actually give you that one. >> where is the official photographer? >> we'll give you this one. that's great. any other -- yeah. over there. >> yeah. >> hello. i'm angela dugan and i'm seen on city of colorado springs city council and we were dealing with the fracking question. and honestly i was on the task force for 18 months. and you're absolutely right. when you look at the science, when you look at the documentation, you truly look at the facts, your film is just wonderful. it was -- and i sit with nine of my colleagues who we keep pushing this off. because we do have a group of environmentalists. people will go to our colleges and these young kids who have

such great energy and passion and fill them with what to say and have you guys ever seen a phrase or a quick bite that could allow people to understand that this is true, don't follow the path? how do i do that? >> i was asked that question last night. and my answer is -- last night was that the first fracked well in the united states of america was in 1947 in kansas. since then, there's been about a million. fracked wells in the united states of america. lisa jackson, the outgoing head of the e.p.a., and no friend, no friend of the oil and gas industry, knows of not one case of water contamination caused by fracking. if that's not good enough for people, i really don't know. and a kid there last night. i know exactly what you're talking about. these people with this kind of -- the stuff that they've been taught in clenls and in high schools. and she kept coming up to me, what about the proper research? i said since 1947, that doesn't work for you? that we haven't seen like

widespread death and disease and destruction? since 1947, and things have -- as the previous speaker or the questioner asked, things have improved a lot since then. that's the line i give. that's one of them anyway. >> i appreciate it. >> janice taylor from colorado springs. and i'm one of your producers. and i did receive my d.v.d. thank you. very much. i wanted to give a plug to the d.v.d. before that, though. "fracknation" deals with mining and hydraulic fracturing primarily in the united states. but your other film, "mining your own business" deals with the environmental movement around the world in developing nations. and i would urge people to go ahead and see that one as well. if you've ever lived and been in africa or like you were talking about in romania, bulgaria or someplace, you can see the connection with the

terrible things that the environmental movement is doing in those places. thank you. >> naung very much. [applause] -- thank you very much. [applause] >> i'm steve davis and work for an airline but my degree is in geology. that town in pennsylvania is interesting because it ailts they work in petroleum extraction they may find the water quality that's historically been bad tasting or whatever gets better over time. there are a number of examples of that that are famous. santa barbara, the oil seeps out there off santa barbara been there for tens of millions of dollars and i walk along the beach in santa barbara and find tar balls. when they started doing offshore drilling and reduced the pressure on those reservoirs offshore, less oil seeped out of the pacific floor in all those oil seeps so less oil on the beaches because of petroleum exploration. and a project that my dad who's

also a geeologist was involved in. uranium. a solution type mining up in northern colorado. north of denver. and the locals opposed it. even though it would have removed the uranium from the subsoil which is what they were worried about. was the uranium in the sush soil. so they -- the project was shut down. through ignorance. and just case after case after case like this. and i would second what the gentleman said earlier. earlier, fracking attempts that aren't safe like now were done with things like jetfuel. i know of at least two sites in colorado where the department of energy, the u.s. government, exploded nuclear weapons down oil wells. in order to see -- and one's in colorado. i've walked to the well head and been there at the site and still hotter than hell. and these things were done as experiments or whatever. but what we're doing now is far, far safer and actually stands to improve conditions. >> exactly. in pennsylvania, talk to doctors in pennsylvania. they're saying people's health

has improved since fracking started. because people have decent jobs and they have health insurance. so they have the operations. they have things that they put off. they go to the doctor more often. farmers, if you're a struggling farmer with 100 acres what do you do? you sell off little lots to wealthy manhattanites for vacation rentals. and that means more concrete, more storage, and in a. so farmers have stopped selling off parts of their land for housing development and preserve green spaces. if you want to preserve open green spaces you have to be in favor of fracking. but the reality is this is not about fracking. for many people. this is just another way of being anti-development, anti-modern, anti-fossil fuel. anti-american fossil fuel especially. because they don't mind saudi arabian fossil fuel. and someone needs to say to the environmental left, do you want to support -- i thought you were in favor of gay rights. i thought you were in favor of

equality for women. do you want to support regimes that hang guys? that stone women to death for adultery? or do you want to support the regime in philadelphia? and pennsylvania? >> or canada. >> or canada. which regime -- which regime do you think is better for gay people or women? where do you want the billions of dollars to go? they're not hanging gay people in pennsylvania. but they are in iran and saudi arabia. so buy your oil in saudi arabia and they hang a gay tomorrow. that should be their slogan. >> can i ask one more question? just a brief question to you. is there a movement to get your films -- i really appreciate your films sthrrks a movement to get them in junior high schools, colleges, at the public level? that's where we need to win this battle. >> you know what? you're the movement to make that happen. you're the movement to make that happen. you know why? you're paying taxes. i'm paying taxes into our education system that's brainwashing children. get involved. get involved. you can -- you can change the

world. don't let anyone tell you one person can't change the world. get off your bottom and go to the local school and find out what they've shown the kids lately. have they shown the -- all this hate and anti-american hateful stuff? and -- say again? and inconvenient truth over and over again. a kid wrote to me the other day in their math class they were shown gasland. and you know the standard of math in this class. like you can't afford to be spending one second doing anything other than teaching math in that math class. you know what i will like to do by the way? i would like to stop all teachers showing any movies ever in classrooms. i would love to stop all the movies. but in the case of the fact that they're allowed to show movies they should show some kind of balance. the problem in this country and sorry, it's the same everywhere and i was a teacher and know how this works, you are a dictator. you own that space. you own -- you own those kids for that time. and those kids for a period in their lives think their parents

are idiots and they invariably love the teacher. and teachers know that and get to spew out their ideology. unfettered. it is child abuse, that is what it is. i know all about it. they go in there and they spew all of this stuff from morning, noon, night. justice is. social marxism. it is terrible. it is here in colorado. do the campaigning. i know what they are doing in schools. [applause] we have run out of time. thank you. >> thank you. >> come tomorrow. don't forget. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> that program is from the leadership program at the rockies retreat. you can find that in our video library at c-span. oracle. we will continue the conversation -- at c-span.org. we will continue the conversation. we hope to keep it as engaging and interesting as the two producers of "fracknation." we are asking about fracking. you can participate on the phones. here are the numbers -- please mute your tv when

calling in. we are using the hash tag of fracking. we have posted the question about the use of hydraulic fracturing. should we be fracking? i want to read you a couple from this ongoing conversation on facebook this evening about the impact of fracking. patricia says -- i worry how this might impact the water. says -- but as you draw the water from the ground, it affects the entire hydraulic connection eventually. it saves and creates good jobs and will help make us even more energy independent. orthe question of fracking let usic fracturing, know. new york.

democrats line. hi there. your tv. that you mute i will let you go and hear from virginia beach. spencer on the republican line. caller: hi. thank you for having me. it is great for them to be taking a different stance on this issue. where i'm from in the midwest, fracking is a way of life. i'm from minnesota. when they first opened up fracking, it was kind of a boom. the boom they have been having, people from other states go there for jobs. thereg as i can remember, has not been any situation where it has become harmful to anything inent for everythin

north dakota. it seemed like a case of demonizing fracking as an industry. but it has proven to be a beneficial thing for the united states. host: you are seeing some of the video from "fracknation." oceanside, california. independent mind. independent line. waxing poetic about keeping our beaches clean . if you talk to other people anin santa barbara, most people are upset about the level of oil still on the beach. .his is from the drilling host: this is an ongoing thing in oceanside? caller: ongoing thing.

it is cleaned up a little bit. host: gas wells and oil wells are a common sight in california. where is the balance between our energy and the effects of journaling, whether it be fracking or offshore drilling? caller: the balance of getting off our asses and putting people to work and investing in solar. to havethe technology solar energy producers. host: thank you for your call. some of the video you are seeing from the national geographic. we can see some places across the country where hydraulic fracturing is happening in the u.s.. bronx, new york. independent line. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. i'm really surprised that

as prevalent as it is now. it is a new technology. i do not think it has been investigated environmentally yet. ashink we are at a point far as energy production is concerned, i believe between fracking, coal production, and offshore drilling, let's say energyand hydro electric need to be balanced. i believe the latter are going to be much more safer environmentally. .ost: thank you for your call we are checking some comments on twitter. the hash tag we are using is fracking.

one says -- fracking will happen. it must be monitored on a controlled, regulated, clear lines of responsibility. another says it is a sticky issue. david. good evening. caller: good evening. we are faced with a different dilemma in the area i live in. they call it frack sand. of land here. there is demand for that. host: tell us what that process is and why it is different. .aller: i do not understand it is a grain of sand that is round. they are desirable for the different types of fracking.

some are better for oil and some are better for gas. we do not have that experience in our needed area, but it is in the surrounding area. there is a lot of pushback from environmentalists to preserve. i think we need to reach a our own not only for financial well-being, because about this, we will never be able to achieve energy independence. we have a rich supply that is more difficult to get. fracking works. host: thank you. we go to ojai of on the democrats line. caller: thank you. i'm 28 years old. i have never heard of fracking before. can you explain what fracking is? host: hydraulic fracturing used in the process of getting

natural gas out of the ground, the earth. caller: ok. i know it has to do with the oil industry. i do nothing think people are familiar with it enough. that is why i called in. thank you. host: cleveland. independent line. caller: thank you. i think it is extremely important that we achieve a very balanced perspective on what is happening. that we justxperts saw on your program are in it because they truly feel and have decided to investigate. ring oing out truaring ou ths. it is hard to bring out the truth when people believe the opposite. people talk about oil spill's from the 1960s that are still

affecting santa barbara. we know that is not true. we know that there can be problems. the little bubbles of tar. , butere is a problem there i look toward experts. a person mentioned that she wanted a balance approach. it should be balanced with solar and hydraulic. great idea. thate also have to realize we are pouring billions of our money into those areas. of area of focus should and i think expand fracking is one of those areas we should support.

thank you for your time. host: you bet. about five more minutes of your calls on the issue of hydraulic fracturing or fracking and energy. congress is coming back next week. it is one of many hearings we will be covering on c-span. the nominee to be the next itergy secretary is a m.i.t professor. that hearing is coming up on tuesday. look for it on c-span 3. we will have more details as tuesday draws closer. i will show you you an article from the huffington post on one of many polls that is out there about hydraulic fracturing. -- thedline says keystone pipeline shows that two thirds of americans support the controversial project. according to a nonpartisan group of 66% of americans, they favor construction of the pipeline that would extend from

alberta, canada, or the midwest. only 23% oppose it. ony also surveyed views other environmental topics. americans were divided on the views of climate change and fracking. let's get in a few more calls. new york. republican line. good evening. caller: hi. i'm definitely for fracking. .ew york state is a moratorium we know that. many land owners would like to be allowed to frack and receive more income. it would be great for the economy and the state. host: how long has this been effect? how long did expected to last question mark caller? caller: i heard last week moratorium would be called off. a lot of people are totally

against it. the border of pennsylvania and new york. ore people who used to be are doing great now. it is booming with fracking. you say this is in pennsylvania where it is happening? caller: yeah. host: bob on our democrats line. i there. caller-- hi there. caller: hi there. there is a movie where people turn on the faucet. people never drilled anywhere near and they can turn on the faucet and light the gas. host: thank you for all the calls this evening. we will continue the conversation online. lots of comments. we could not get to all of them.

he spoke.com/c-span. c-e hash tag -- facebook.com/ span. hash tag on twitter is fracking. on "washington journal" we will hear from danielle kurtzleben on the march jobs report. we will also hear from andrew black on u.s. pipeline systems. you can watch "washington at 7 a.m.very morning eastern. >> what are the assurances that this committee and the senate has as to where it will be given the background and history? >> as a teenager and in my

early 20's, i was a socialist. i think itchurchill was said, any man who is not 40ialist by the time he is has no heart. one was -- two trains passing in the night. he did his homework. he studied. .rilliant judge he taught antitrust law. he wrote the book. you're these two guys who aren't meeting. they were passing like to trains.

never came together on anything. the former deputy assistant to presidents nixon and ford. on c-span's "q&a." >> the state department gave a statement to north korea. victoria nuland, a department spokesman. swedish embassy in north korea acts as america's protecting power, providing basic services to u.s. citizens in the country. here is a portion of the state department briefing on the tensions with north korea. >> have you heard anything from wedes, withs, this leade s the north koreans saying they ?annot guarantee the safety

>> we have been and touch with the swedes. swedes.ouch with the a at this point we have no reason to believe that they will make any changes. >> how many american citizens do you believe there are in north korea? >> i frankly do not have a number for you. i'm not even sure we have a number. >> do you know if any have registered with the swedish embassy? there are aid workers. the issuesone of with having and in accurate number. the maturity -- the majority of americans are ngo workers who come in and out with humanitarian aid. is also the occasional tourist.

we have one american detained, etc. i do not have an accurate number. recognizing that not everyone registers and maybe some do not know. >> right. >> just a rough idea. >> we will see what we can get. >> the swedes until did that to changet and tenintend their posturing? i think you have trouble be seen that the uk has put out a statement that they would not change their posture either. >> what do you think this is? >> we have talked about this all week. this is an escalating series of rhetorical statements. the question is, to what end?

>> how much further can they go without firing a shot? >> i'm not in the position to have a crystal ball on that kind of thing. forill take prudent cautions. we have seen that happen. we think this is the wrong choice. we want to leave the door open. to do you planning tothing in terms of notices what used to be ward notice this and soues? inwith regard to americans the republic of korea, our embassy put out a message on april 4 two u.s. citizen saying that we have no specific information to suggest an eminent right to u.s. citizens or facilities in th. the goal is to be calming.

>> that was yesterday? >> no change. can you tell you who you are? >> i'm from cnn. on the wording on the statement , was an invitation to evacuate? or a suggestion? >> the invitation? we were not a recipient of it. i would be for you to those who were. wholl let those governments received it speak on that. he spoke to a special envoy. i assume they discussed other developments? theeyond saying that ambassador has been in contact with all of the allies and partners in the six party process, you can assume that

they were talking about our shared concerns that despite our efforts to try to get them to change course, tension continues. oicheaeloup chairman speaks at the export- import bank conference. he says financial institutions are ready to start lending more money once demand in the economy picks up. this is about 125 minutes. -- 25 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome [indiscernible] [applause]

i can get used to this, you know? missy for joining us this morning. did everyone have a good day today? [applause] -- thank you for joining us this morning. i learned a lot today. i learned about latin america, mexico. regions for strong growth. one of the big innovations he might have with the data and how that might affect marketing decisions and how it can make better decisions on how to target efforts. i heard from a small business panel talking about the importance of social media,

twitter, things like that. -- youtter feed and qr have a smart phone. i hope you will download the program. we will do all of our surveys online. that is how we find out the programs you like and which panels you like. we will do more of what you liked and less of what you didn't like dexter. -- next year. danceher said you cannot at two weddings and i try to dance at four. in china is 26ge and in india is 36. maybe a slower growth, but long- term and a lot of opportunities. -- a lotback to the is of activity in seoul area.

they have an election next year in india. things slowed down before federal elections. no one has ever heard of that in our country, but sometimes things slowed down a little bit before the election. you will hear from denny rodrick about a lot of nuclear opportunity as countries look at energy security and reducing their carbon foot rent. another of interesting factors in that. i heard that he talks about the balance return market and -- about the market and the state. iose are some of the things picked up yesterday. , we signed an .greement with a council

we signed a memorandum of understanding. i was just there. tosigned an agreement provide financing for up to i've billion dollars -- 5 bi llion dollars. it depends on the industry. a lot of infrastructure in dubai. our, water -- power, water. largest country of exposure globally. india.four, right after india is coming up fast. a lot of opportunities there. with theeeting chairman of a bank. they have every turn on equity

at 24.5%. i'm not allowed to buy stock and i cannot make stock tips, but that sounded pretty good. we signed an agreement less than a year ago with them for $1 billion. they announced this week a 12 boeing aircraft with the leasing company. in on that on the next several months. i'm hopeful that you are also finding opportunities, deals, and the new relationships that you can make here at this conference so you come out of here with the understanding up opportunities and perhaps an or the beginnings of an order. larry summers had some airline problems coming

down here, so we will have a conversation with michael o'neill instead. after that, a panel on competitiveness. was one of the best panels we had last year. following that, ray lahood on transportation and infrastructure and how it impacts global trade. vice president of -- she has some advice on how we can do a better job at the banks. and the vice president will be here. that is a little bit later. tosoon as you can come back

get screened for the luncheon if you have to make a phone call, better to do it inside this area. the only other thing i would add, the unemployment figures came out this morning. unemployment has dropped to the lowest it has been in years. it it thousand jobs in the month of march. jobs in the month of march. i will ask michael o'neill to join me. i have had the privilege of getting to know him. he is that chairman of citigroup. he also ran the bank of hawaii for a number of years. .robably nicer weather there

one of the best banks in the country. let's give him a round of applause for that. [applause] to say -- reluctant you have been in the banking industry for a long time. as citibank, you're one of the largest banks in the country. what are the big changes in 30 years? fromare some takeaways that perch you are in question >? >> where do i begin? first of all, it is 40 years in the industry. the environment we are in now is clearly one with economic prospects are less clear. i think, thinking,

when there was great confidence in the u.s. that is no longer the case. that needs toint be made is regulation. it has become a much bigger part in the banking business than it was then. i learned early in my career what not to do them what to do. there is a name that some of the older audience members will remember. the bank failed. it was perceived too big to fail at the time. the government basically got its money back. it was an awkward situation. jpmorgan is a trillion dollar bank. -- are an

you can imagine the change in scale here that has occurred in the last 30 or 40 years. i create all sorts of issues. -- that creats all sorts of issues. it also creates potential problems like those we saw in 2006, 2007, and 2000 and eight. -- 2008. it really did threaten the global economy. it is night and day over that time. we are still struggling not to right the ship, but ensure the safety and sound esness issues that occurred in

2008 do not happen again. there are things that are being .ow explained how do i describe this? .dentified by the regulators we're not done yet, but i think it is time we are with the implementation. we will see. much safer and sounder than we have been in a long time. that has not been completely troubled, but we are making terrific breasts in that -- ter rific progress in that area.

the economy is going to determine our earnings prospect . than little less sanguine i am about -- >> in 2008 in the aftermath of the crisis, what many broker became bankhers companies. what are some of the good outcomes from that? are some things we need to keep an eye on in the merger of those kinds of financial markets? first start by asking ourselves why those brokerage firms became bank holding companies.

the market environment at the time was toxic. , visitations could not sell their assets quick enough. thats absolutely critical the banks and the government established by those large banks were safe. and the way they did it was to allow those brokerage firms to become banks and have access to the federal reserve window. very quickly the liquidity issues that threaten to become more serious than they were were resolved for sto. this evidence to do it it was making sure that they had liquidity.

the consequences of doing that was at these companies now have to live in a much more heavily regulated world. that is not all bad. disciplines of that they are having to live with our good. certainly for the economy overall ful. the risk of mixing capital that take banks consumer deposits has been well discussed. everyone is concerned that these consumer deposits that are will beed by the fdic used to make imprudent investments. the uk has gone so far to suggest that the investment asks unfairly described casino banks, separated from the consumer banks.

we in the u.s. are taking a different approach. it is a concern that consumer deposits are used inappropriately. i would say it that would be the area that one would want to continue to watch and continue to make sure that banks are being prudent and well capitalized. >> before this conference people met with some of the largest banking partners. one of the things that came out of that is that a number of bankers in the room said that they felt like they were underlined. moore capital could be put into projects. working people in this room underlend?

>> i think the statement is true. what we are seeing is a deleveraging both by consumers and companies. that is not all bad. it is a reaction to issues that --urred in 2000 and eight 2008. long-term, it is not sustainable. largely we were overlent. not because the banks are unwilling to lend. at this point we are willing to make any good -- there is good news on the horizon apparently, but there really isn't long demand from people that are strong credits.

i do not think there is a policy. some would argue because we are building capital to meet the new standards that we are unwilling to make love. i do not think that is true. i think we will make whatever goodland we can. oan we can.d l >> i was trying to be generous by saying 30 years and you said 40 years. tell us about a country you visited early in your career that blossomed much faster than it thought and looks like has a lot of potential that took longer to come to pass. >> let me take a second to think here. teenager, i lived both in europe and asia. s. the late 1950s and 1960

i think the place that impressed me the most is singapore. , iecall leaving the u.s. think it was kennedy, flying on pan aam. ore.ending up in signgap >> it was a boeing plane. >> it was. there was no airbus, my friend. were the good days. [laughter] >> you can tell that it needed a lot of work. i'm happy to report that a lot of work was done. it looks fantastic when you go today. it is state-of-the-art.

now you can board an airplane as singapore happily and travel back. there is a different feeling ago.you had four years it is we that we need the work. i think there are a lot of challenges that need to be met. i'm also confident that they can be met. if we have the political will. -- the contntrast ratst. >> before the global financial crisis, i think that people model marketrld, economy, so forth, it has gotten a little kicked around based on the financial crisis. how does that change from your

perspective our country's financiald institutions to provide models for the rest of the world? does that change in your opinion? and how? >> i think it has change, certainly reputationally. the perception was that it was the u.s. that it's greedy ways cost of the crisis. i do nothing the financial institutions were the only parties. think the financial situations were the only parties. i think fannie and freddie were -- it was suggested that they

make loans. monetary policy was such that it sponsored it. i think there were some dishonest people in the business. certainly not all of them, but some. it would fraudulently filled out applications and make loans. there is plenty of blame to go around. .ortgages were bundled up also in europe and asia. results were not good. of the u.s. as a bastion of capitalism has certainly been hit. when you look at the economies

that have been successful in the last 10 or 15 years, there has been a good combination of government and business working together. i think that is the direction that would be the right one -- to take. we will talk more about that on the competitiveness panel. i think we will see more of that in the future. obviously there are advantages and disadvantages to to both. your cousin was had a strong -- that has not always worked well, at least not recently. this is important. what keeps you up at night? assuming this position, i sleep less well. what keeps me up at night, well

, i worry about the sustainability of the economy. europe continues to be a problem. i think it is being dealt with in an unbalanced. it is a long-term problem. given europe's problems and our things are, performing ok, but not the way they were in the past. we have our own any problems at this point. the government increasingly -- dare i use the word, dysfunctional. the issues that people are wrestling with the need to get resolved, hopefully sooner rather than later. i'm no expert. i'm not terribly confident that any aid solution will happen.

.- any big solution will happen that keeps me up is cybersecurity. and one of hista last speeches describe the single biggest threat to the united states. when he says that, you certainly have to listen. targeted, all of the big banks have been targeted. cybersecurity is not just about hackers. it is not just about guys trying to get your credit card number. in the case of many economies, there has been a lot of press and israel.and iran it is a reality.

these are very sophisticated people. building firewalls against them will be difficult. we have got a strong team. this is a threat. it is one that should keep us all up at night. >> on a more positive note, you have traveled around. this is a personal question. where do you see opportunities that people should take a second look at? i think columbia is a strong .arket for u.s. exporters do you have a couple of places in mind? >> yes. there is a term that we use internally. the color frontier economies.

-- we call it frontier economies. golia, has asked o etc. they are actually quite strong. they have got hard-working people and are increasingly well-educated. typically pretty strong leadership. there are more. i think it will be good. i will wrap this up so we had time to reset for the next panel. round ofe him hia applause. [applause] we will hear more from michael o'neill in the next panel. this is just a warm-up act.

give us a few minutes and we will start the competitiveness panel. we have got a full day. we would gehave you plenty occupied. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] > thelso, it in discussion on competitiveness market. this is an hour. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our first panel to remain competitive in global markets. we have ursula burns, michael and general james jones.

good morning. .y name is steve i'm a colonist at the washington post. i'm also a professor at george mason university. that is where i spend most of my time these days. it is a privilege to be here again. here last year. we have an interesting panel. is paid double today because he is doing two of these sessions. >> just that i prepared for. >> good. larry summers. >> toughed out. >-- toughjob. job.

>> i will introduce each of the speakers and they will briefly introduce what subject they would like to talk about. opus on one thing about on onetiveness -- focus thing about competitiveness. moveyou guys on the end in a little bit so we can see each other? feel free to jump in and ask questions of each other. i'm not the only one who has questions. we will start on my left. burns. she joined xerox corporation as a summer intern in 1980. it is safe to say she has moved up the ladder. she is now chairman and chief executive. she's also vice-chairman of the president expert counsel.

general james jones. -- in the marines and security advisor to obama. he once worked for the chamber of commerce working on issues. to my right is the president of the center for american progress. shall we say, a centerleft think tank in town. obamacare at the the department of health and an advisor.ces as is a write at one time she worked on senator clinton's presidential primary campaign. wohom you know very well by now.

focus on month in, what should we focus on? focus only i would education, but i'll don on my andand speak about exports shipping them around the world in an effective way. >> ok. is theral jones, what thing you want to focus on? >> it is important to realize just how the world of energy figures in our future, both from a competitive aspect, but also a national aspect. there are many solutions to our problems. one of the bright and shining paths that we should follow is the energy path. wiring energy and have the

u.s. leads throughout the world on the energy potential. this is one of the bright things we have to look forward to. the most critical element is human capital. from zero education to 22 and 25. are seeing increasing competition from asia and other countries that traditionally we did not see as competitors. i think that element of the education system is critical to long-term competitiveness. >> michael? >> a variation on your theme i'm afraid. >> glad i went first. >> i think i will focus on talent.

basically, how do we educate, train, develop our citizens? how to attract and thatn people from overseas come to the united states to work? they often have big contributions to make. they're frequently unable to stay because the policy issues and other factors. i will not talk about enabling that talent. that is what this conference is about. it will be much the same. talent is the key. >> ok. we're doing pretty well in exports.

imports and exports go down and recession and now both are going up. problem solved? >> not at all. when i joined the president's and talked about doubling exports in the next five years, the 2010 export 4.4. six ian .5% -- 16.5% trend is slowin g if we don't fundamentally change. we can have some trade agreements signed. therder for us to meet goal and continuing double- digit expansion, we need to address this problem.

we need to think about being enablers. trade agreements, broader enforcement -- >> enforcement so that we can get into markets that we are shut out of for reasons that are not surely about the trade treaty, but things that go beyond it? >> exactly. what is happening around the world is that as we are changing we have signed trade agreements and countries figure out another way to limit exports. a lot of issues around trade. we have to have the agreement signed and have a serious enforcement mechanism, which we are improving, which is good. if you do not follow the rules, you are out. we have penalties. we have been infrastructure, a broad infrastructure that allows us to be ready to sell around the world.

it has to do with infrastructure and education. is a systemystem that makes trade and exports that needs to be stepped up another notch to get that double-digit growth. >> the question about enforcement, it is a real dilemma for the united states. and the business community. they say, enforced these agreements. open these markets. ,e have a lot to sell particularly in the area of services. and so, you know, other countries do what they do. they slow and dragon have informal ways of keeping us out. it is time to get tough. having slow and drag on informal ways of keeping us out. it is time to get tough.

we are for free-trade and you're violating the of it. if you're not willing to take some hits, you cannot really enforce the usse. how will we resolve that? this cannot be handled by any individual country going rogue. -- infrastructure expected is thaty've expected somebody has wrong or sinned and they would lead the charge. one of the things the export council worked on and administration helps with is for us to force behind the words. a coalition of companies that would go against the country if

there is intellectual property .iolations in say software the a coalition with government will allow companies to be more brave and forceful. without that, it would be silly for companies to stand alone. >> does that mean like sign a complaint? we are working on mechanisms to make it work. how do you streamline the rules and to make it more public. together, business and government would go forth and say, yes, this is a violation. we will take our toys back just like you would take your toys back. the business community is right. we need to get tough with country x.

some say, you cannot do that because how do we resolve that question? >> i think we're in a new world and the aspect of our competitiveness is center stage of our national security policy. so it is not just about -- as it was in the 20th century about the defense department and the state department and the national security council and everyone else is on the outside looking in. we have cyber security concerns, we have economic security concerns. one of the things that the president asked me to do was go to capitol hill and talk to them about the necessity of leadership in reforms. i think we have to move major pieces in our structure of our

government so that american business is, in fact, brought into the -- if you will, the situation room on the same level as other issues. we have to have -- those actions toward us have to have consequences. one of the things i've learned in the last decade or so, there's a real affinity of american private sector involvement, generally speaking. but at the governmental level, we're not where we need to be, i don't think in terms of helping american business succeed. >> the good news is there is a place now being made at the table to at least participate in the conversations early. i don't know how other export councils work, but this one i'm surprised we actually do work. we meet with the administration, we meet with the state department, with meet with all

the agencies to make sure they understand and we work together to move the ball forward. this is not going to be easy. we can't say we're going to be forceful against china tomorrow. we'll make small steps every day to make it easier for businesses to do business around the world -- for u.s. business to do business around the world. >> let's turn to human capital. what is it -- so education, everyone is for education. everyone knows we have an education problem and we've been talking about it until we're blue in the face. we're making some progress but i would not say anyone is happy with the pace of it. how do we get out of this rut? >> i think there are a few things. the u.s. is making marginal improvements but i think if you learn the lessons from around the world there are unique

challenges to the u.s. education system. if you look at what happens in finland or other nations. fin land has one of the best educational system in the world and they don't pay teachers dramatically more. but they think teachers as almost like business leaders. how do you track top talent -- how do you attract the top talent to do the best in the classroom. they provide teachers a lot of aument in the classroom -- autonomy in the classroom. we can learn from the private sector in terms of education because, you know, in most of areasivate sector in most in the u.s. life -- in the u.s. economic life if we're professionalizing a field we give them more autonomy and more

accountability for success. when you look at our higher education system, that is the best in the world, that is what we're doing. that is a big set of challenges. one thing we did at the center was how china and india are ramping up their investments and human company. one thing we found was by 2030, china will have more college graduates than our entire work force. they are very much thinking about how their work force competes on manufacturing against our work force and innovation in a variety of areas. so when we think -- in washington it becomes sterile. >> you noticed? >> not just in education but when we think about how to move forward, you know, i think we're competing with countries that

are looking at this, looking at education as part of a whole fleet of areas. one of the issues that raises is hina is moving asia to compete in a more international place. they are thinking of that, their education system that way as well. their education system is an asset of the state to make them more competitive over long term. it is not just making people happier and good citizens, it is about making them good competitors for the u.s. and the world. >> you don't think we do that? >> i think we actually shun thinking about education as a partnership between the government. don't think strategically about education as an economic issue and a national economic issue. there's a lot of partisanship about the federal role around

education and, you know, what role we should have in terms of what we should test and etc. i think that core belief becomes more difficult and it is more challenged in a world where countries are competing at a different plane. >> so you're associated with the left side of the political spectrum. so let me ask you this question. >> obamacare, left -- >> you're on the right right now. >> that's true. >> would -- do you think that liberal democrats and the teachers' union would accept your formula, which i think is a good one, autonomy plus accountability. the two a's. you want more autonomy you got

it. but here's the accountability but we're going to be tough about that. >> i can't speak for everyone. we would, obviously. right now, we have -- we are creating accountability rigid under at are mining autonomy. how do you get the best person in the business? how does google attract engineers? how do you attract business leaders? >> money. -- u might want to look because i know how he attracts them. >> i think part of the reason that people get more money because they can make individual decisions. >> they make a lot of autonomy. >> i think as we navigate greater systems of accountability in our education system, i worry that we're

actually, you know, we are repeating the industrial model in the 21st century in education when we need to move to different models. where individuals have autonomy and they are account ability. i think actually, right now they have accountability and no autonomy. so that would be a step up. >> another big issue in education is choice. students and parents ought to be able to take their public money, ecertainly, their voucher and be able to go to any school, public, private, and that sets up a competitive dynamic. are you in favor of that? >> well, you know, i'm in favor of what works. >> does that work? >> every analysis that has been

done of private school charters and even public school charters -- i'm a big fan of public school charters. they have not shown positive results. i don't think -- i think we should do what works. i would be totally open to these models if they succeeded but so far we don't have evidence of them succeeding. >> general, do you want to talk about energy? frack is going save us, right? >> i don't know if fracking will but with the right science and if it is done by people who are responsible, is certainly a viable option. >> what would you do -- what else would you do in energy to stimulate our exports? >> well, the first thing i think needs to be done is to recognize

that we are now organized as a government to handle strategically the concept of energy. e have just finished a three-year study, i was study, so n this balanced all good guy partisan and a very, very good of the energy ation of the savings trying to come up with a strategic path for the future. if we don't do this we're going to be right back where we were. we have not had a strategic energy policy for the last 40 years. there is no such thing. the department of energy, the secretary of energy, this is not a criticism, this is a fact. the secretary of energy is not the secretary of nuclear energy.

in my view, the best thing for the president to do is to organize the executive branch so that energy is dealt with one single point of responsibility and accountability and that's the secretary of energy. just as the secretary of state handles foreign policy, secretary of defense of the defense policy. so it is important to say that, because if you don't have a strategic point in our government that is responsible to bring together the 15 or 16 different agencies that have a ot to say about energy and the 30-32 oversight agencies on capitol hill, we're not going to get there. point one, that is extremely important to do. i think you should have a senior director in the national security council, i think we should have -- we also think we ould have an energy q.d.r.

review. we advocate for the fact that we need all of our energy, it would we'veragic mistake to say got shale gas and shale oil and we don't have to do anything else. we need to have a complete portfolio from wind and renewables. if we do this right we can move forward to advocating throughout the world and leading throughout the world on this very, very important subject that affects energy for everyone but also on our climate and everything else. it is a big way for the united states to lead dramatically in the 21st century. but the first thing we have to do is get our house in order. >> let's talk about getting our house in order for a bit. first of all, now i'm going to

play the right wing. this is american, general. we don't have strategies for anything. that's the beauty of america. the government doesn't have a strategy for business. business figures out what to do. the invisible hand does it. when we get into economic planning and we're moving toward russia. >> or china. >> or china. we don't do that. >> i certainly recognize that and i wouldn't dispute that. i agree with the fact that we do strategic thinking poorly. but somehow we muddle through. but this 21st century that we're in is one we created. we advocated for other countries to be like us, compete like us, bring the private sector forward and compete fairly.

of course, we don't like it when other countries have a close parallel between their government and the business sector. some cases, it is not distinguishable. i'm not advocating that is where we should go. but there is nothing wrong, good that ct it is the two sides come together and it shouldn't be too restrict pitch it should not choke off the winners and the leasers will be determine fwid free -- losers will be determined by the free market. if you can do, that i think we, by the way, with the complete agreement of the private sector that was represent ed around the table, if you read the report, there is way you can have a strategy that doesn't restrict, that doesn't limit the private sector vifment and allows the

investment and-- allows the free market to compete. >> education is where the old odel of, like, you know, the government stays far away just won't work. that is my opinion. we need private sector involvement more than that, they need to be the drivers and leaders but we need integrated strategy on education, we need one on energy, i think we have one on defense. this is place where there is a strong coordination -- so it can work. i think just because we didn't in the past that is not a good reason to not do it in a going forward basis. the people around the world are trying to be like us and playing

it more swiftly and a little bit etter. >> on that point, can i say, education is a great example of, sort of the middle ground, right? germanny is doing well economically, it is not china. there's a free market, etc. germanny has had a real partnership between the elementary school system, the higher education system, and their businesses. they have a system that trains -- that really drives the work force, creates a work force of high-end manufacturers. they have engineers, well-paid engineers and their education system is partnered with the private sector to figure out the human capital needs of the private sector and drives the education system in that direction. is everyone forced to do certain

things? no, they direct them more than what we would but there is that partnership. when we look at the higher education system or the community compliege system there are some models that we want to learn from. we hear from the private sector that we have huge gaps. there are huge areas where people in silicon valley want to hire engineers and can't find them. maybe if there is more of a strategic partnership between the public and private sector on some of these issues we could be more productive overall. >> there are political issues on the planet right now that have private sector solutions. if you could bring those two together, the united states can retain its potion well into the 2 -- position well into the 21st century. >> give us an example.

>> you have one in turkey, afghanistan and it has to do with the transmission of oil and gas. turkey would like to wean itself from the dependence on russia energy. they would like a pipeline from the northern part of iraq and into turkey and into the mediterranean. the government of the kurdish region for its own reasons would like to have that pipeline built also because they get 17% of all revenues that go through any pipeline. baghdad, i think has an interest in getting its 83% of that and they could announce a pipeline being built from baghdad to the mediterranean. washington has a strategic interest in kind of being the arranger and the proposer and so

i'm giving you a scenario that could, if all the players chose to play nice g.o. politically would have huge economic ram my nation for the entire region. it could be that american companies would participate and -- in that kind of development. >> so retaining and attracting talent, particularly, non-american talent do you want to talk about that or something else? >> no, i would like to talk about that. i share the views that it would be nice to come up with annum brell la solution to this issue. based our success in coming up with umbrella solutions to any issue, i'm dubeous. it is something we need to work on but i think it is difficult to accomplish. i think there are micro steps one can take that would significantly improve our

situation. last year at this time, at this conference, manual was here talking about a partnership between the community colleges in chicago, businesses in chicago, trade associates, union, etc. that were really focused on changing the vick william of the community colleges to specifically focus on, not only the jobs of today but the jobs of the future. it is in its early days but there is an example of a fairly localized approach that would hopefully generate some good success. we have this odd situation where 750,000 of our students at universities are foreign. half of them are from china and india. you will not be surprised to learn many of them focus on

cience and math, technology, subjects that unfortunately, have not been in the u.s. for some time. we need those jobs as we talked about. but we grant every year, i want to say 78,000 visas. so there are 750,000 students that we attract that come to our great universities that we find difficult -- we find difficult to retain given that situation. it gets worse than that. of that number of visas, basically, no country can take more than 7%. so we've got india, china, 50% of the students in our universities, yet, constrained because of the 7% limitation. again, their focus is on precisely the skills that we need. we've got --

>> why -- people have been talking about this for years. this seems like the easiest problem to solve and no one -- not too many -- either party is against the visas. what is the problem? >> what is the problem trying to figure out our economic problem? [laughter] it is obvious, isn't it? >> i'm asking you to answer it. i could answer it but i want you to answer it. >> well, i think the facts are pretty straight forward. is there the political will? is there the courage to take some of this stuff on? thus far, not. there was a discussion last year the house about basically about giving 78,000 visas specifically to foreign graduates or universities

providing they majored in math, science, etc. is it law? i don't think it is law. >> not yet. >> but they are coming close to it. they are coming close to a deal. >> so this is something that everybody thinks, ok, this is a good idea. there is a little bit of a problem. the little bit of a problem is half of these visas go to india firms that use them to bring indian graduates over here to spend one or two years working in a call center at very low wages so they can go back and be able to do call centers back home. all we need is for -- to be frank about it, your friends in the republican party say we won't do that. [laughter] i want you to know --

>> it is not that simple and straight forward. it really isn't. >> what is complicated. that seems to be causing the simple thing we don't want those visas used by indian outsourcing firms. we want it to be used for the issue that mike said. >> i think this is a problem very much like the problem that the general is talking about. the political will, this is not rocket science by any stretch of the imagination. we know who the people are, we know the types of jobs we want them in. we have other people interested in other immigration issues. the high-skilled immigration issue, ok let's keep them here. then there is the low-skilled immigration issue, which is a big disaster. no one is going to give them --

>> so we're going to hold this hostage until we get this. so everything is a hostage? >> it is not problems -- we're not discussing the problem. we're discussing the deal. this whole thing about the deal gets, i think everybody is like what are we talking about, let's fix the problem? that is not easy. you noahaway better than anyone on this panel. >> you said we need an export policy that is better. the germ talked about we need someone really at the table, the inner table at the white house who represents business. ok, so there is a report and says let's take commerce and agencies and er put them under one officer and is the economic development director of the united states as

the way most governors are the economic director of their state and let this person be there at the table. what is the immediate reaction of the two ranking members of the senate finance committee? no, we will oppose that until we die. that means my committee loses jurisdiction over the ustr. how to do we get the system out of these petty narrow things to focus on the big issues? none of this stuff is complicated. we can do this. how do we do this? >> i think part of the issues is that we leekt some of these guys. [laughter] >> we do. >> part of -- [applause] >> i think we -- >> i'm sorry, are you a democrat? [laughter] am? you know what i

i am the only living rockefeller republican. >> i'm a republican from massachusetts. > it's the same thing. but anyway. we don't have a party so we had to -- i had to join one of the others. so, you know, this is getting to be a real problem. if we can't do the easy ones, there are hard issues. but if we can't do the easy ones then we have a problem in general. >> i think there are things that the administration can do. obviously, it is great to consult with congress but they can do in the interest of the country. these kinds of reorganizations, if you will, are good. they have to be done. they reflect environment that we're in. a sure sign of decline for a company or country, is when they

can't change itself to meet the environment they are in, they don't compete. there's a lot of people labeling this era the decline of the united states. i don't believe that. we've always managed to figure out ways out of previous predicted declines but this is a serious moment. and we have opportunities to do the right things and we have to do them. with all due respect to the congress, somebody gave me advice years ago, in washington, if you want to succeed you should be for what is going to happen. the private sector is going to force this to happen one way or the other. >> i don't want to have us all be completely cynical with this conversation. i think that immigration reform s an area where there is optimistic signs. if there is any issue resolved,

it would be immigration reform and it may not be the perfect resolution but it will be more of a system. we'll be keeping more of the graduates here. look, i think the challenge in washington is really, you know, i think it is easy to say people are done and petty and stupid and we seem to have this conversation every day. but, i think the challenge they are struggling with is the parties are farther apart than they have ever been in any other era. there are deep differences on the role of government and wlit makes any sense. let's remember, we were having a debate last year if we should have an export bank. so businesses are lined up on that issue, yet